Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-18

Respectfully - isn't this just cherry picking what goes into a mathematical construction?

Unless temporary, grade is just as relevant as costs. IF the costs are low but grade comes in at 0.20g/t (an extreme example) you're still producing hardly any ounces per tonne of ore processed which mathematically could give you an AISC of say $2,900/oz.

If grade is knocking the lights out at 2g/t, and costs are 10-15 x the size, and it mathematically computes again to $2,900 /oz, your AISC is still $2,900/oz?

The drivers between either scenario obviously present different optionality and possibilities for cost reductions, but the point is an AISC of $2,900, is still an AISC of $2,900, however you calculate it. I think trying to explain it away seems more a deflection than acknowledgement of the issues at hand here.

Lower gold prices results in a higher cutoff in grade. For a major - it will lose ounces, but for a small player like BCN this would be much harder to manage.

Likewise your comparison to an in house mining operation vs contractor proves just that - the AISC would reduce from cheaper in house mining - and would show. I don't quite get what you're trying to get at with brushing away the grade as excusing a high AISC cost?

If it was a "temporary" difference in grade, and sales timing - perhaps, but it is obviously consistently a high cost producer. Which is why this has failed to re-rate meaningfully compared to other gold players and options out there in what has been one of the best gold bull runs in our living memory.